[icxa]

Absurdity of this video aside, but I just wish there was room in today's political environment to discuss pros and cons to unions and non-unions. There are some pretty good examples of unions being corrupt, there are examples where unions work. There are examples where like Amazon says, having a direct relationship with your employer is the best. Nuance is gone which is the biggest loss.

[Animats]

So little is said about unions today. There was a time when newspapers had a "union beat", and you'd read about who was elected head of the UAW local and how the Steelworkers negotiations were going. It's been a long time since WCFL radio, "The Voice of Labor in Chicago".

Few people know how unions work any more. They vary as much as companies do. Some are top down, some are bottom up. Some run their own insurance and pension plans. Some are craft oriented, like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and some cover everyone in a plant, like the United Auto Workers.

For the "tech" industry, the Hollywood unions are worth looking at as a model. Most are under the umbrella of IATSE, The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees. The Animation Guild represents most of the animators at the major studios. IATSE has grown over the last decade, which is unusual for unions today. They've picked up many people in Hollywood effects houses. They have not, however, been able to organize the game industry, despite trying.

IATSE figured out the "gig economy" long ago. Their contracts cover things like "minimum call time" (if you're called into work for an emergency, that's not only paid time, there's a minimum number of hours, usually 4), and overtime (not just paid, but time and a half and double time during crunches). This is why, as I've pointed out before, film scheduling is an organized discipline but software development scheduling is a joke.

There are advantages to working at a company with a partly unionized workforce even if you're not in a unionized job. There's less being jerked around. Management is aware that their authority is not unlimited. Hours also tend to be more reasonable.

[lordalch]

I actually worked as a production electrician & lighting designer for a couple years, and I can say from my experience that IATSE is a cancer on the industry. I wouldn't join or support a union for computer technologists.

My main concern for the tech industry is that a union is fundamentally exclusionary. It's survival depends on preventing competition- any other activity it undertakes is only to serve that goal, or to justify it.

Unions prevent competition by demanding exclusivity in a company's labor supply, they prevent competition from new entrants by being outright hostile to young tradespeople (in most trade unions, it's basically impossible to join without sponsorship form an existing member), and they prevent competition among members by fixing wages, suppressing the earning potential of the most valuable employees.

Once a union has succeeded in restraining trade, it can extract monopoly rents from the flow of labor. At best, this looks like an ever-growing university-style administration that exists to justify its own existence. Unions can never exist to create net value, only to capture it, and that by necessity means that value is destroyed by their existence. They're antithetical to the principles of fairness, openness and inclusiveness that we claim to value.

Moreover, why would we even want a union, on an individual level? We (American citizens with a BSCS or similar) each already hold a golden ticket directly to the gentry class. We are, by pure luck of nationality, already privileged beneficiaries of the American coastal tech boom cities, of American currency and political dominance of the past seven decades, and of our restrictive immigration policies that artificially inflate wages for computer professionals across the country above their global equilibrium price. A CS graduate today can reasonably expect to be a millionaire by midlife, if they choose to save accordingly.

And if you don't like having to work late sometimes, you have the option to take a job that doesn't require it. If you don't want to live the Senior SRE lifestyle, you don't have to.

[jrheard]

What's a good way to learn more about the history and function and current status of unions? Are there any good books/resources that aren't particularly biased toward one side or the other?

[Animats]

It's harder than I expected. Try: [1], which is a study of how unions have interacted with the gig economy. (Mechanical Turk workers had an organization, Dynamo. Last update on their web site was 4 years ago, though.)

Teen Vogue (which has better content than the name would suggest) has a good article.[2]

[1] http://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Mil...

[2] https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-a-labor-union-is-and-ho...

[truckerbill]

There Is Power in a Union by Philip Dray is worth a read.

[mmcwilliams]

At the same time, there should also be room to discuss the pretty good examples of employers being corrupt and even engaging in wage-fixing collusion against workers across companies within an industry. On this site there’s plenty of anti-worker sentiment and not enough discussion of the misdeeds [0] of the employers.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust...

[ckris]

There are plenty of issues that should be on the table when it comes to technology workers like equity arrangements, severance at high risk companies, systems for promotions, actual vacations, open source funding, health care between employment etc. The reason it won't happen isn't because there isn't cause, or that employees would suddenly sabotage the company, but that any such organization would be a politic force. Especially in a country like the US where there are only two parties as contenders and only 50% of the eligible population votes. It doesn't take that much to change the political landscape, which is why no one can be allowed to.

Companies view everything as a cost whether it is infrastructure, health care or rights. They lobby broadly to minimize those costs and to keep their own position. And that is unlikely to change. If there is any argument against unions it is that it is already too late. Unions ultimately work by having a war chest for strikes. The company, or the employer organization, then have their own war chest. Tech companies have so much cash, and the cost of living is so high, that a strike wouldn't even be thinkable for many many years. Making an effective union impossible.

[mmcwilliams]

I’m not sure I’m convinced that going into any discussion that prefaces worker organization as “impossible” is entirely in good faith. All industries view worker-related expenses as costs (they are) so I don’t see the exception in this case.

What I do see is that a $350-400M settlement was seen by insiders as being short an order of magnitude, meaning that the 65,000 tech workers affected by this wage-fixing crime left a lot on the table. Class actions lawsuits, it seems, aren’t the correct tool for this kind of negotiation and unions are a viable alternative.

[ckris]

I guess my comment can be read both ways, but for what it is worth I support unions. It is just that people tend to discuss it like it is a choice of equal difficulty. The tech companies now are so large, and have so much capital and influence that it might take 10 years in the best case scenario to even have a choice to sustain a union. Unions just like any other organization are effective because the things they have. You would have to build the capital, institutions and influence in face of the companies. And that only happens when they are afraid of conflict. But the only thing they are afraid of is losing is influence so the might for example have to tax their offshore earnings to contribute to infrastructure spending and social reforms. So they will fight unions at all cost, because that is one of the few ways that could happen.

[mmcwilliams]

That’s fair and I’ll admit that I read your comment as a slight-of-hand anti-union statement akin to the linked Amazon video. There’s a lot of FUD spread about organizing that masquerades as well meaning advice: the company will fight it, they’ll shut down your shop, it’s not worth doing it, etc.

I don’t disagree that companies will fight unionization in the industry but that describes the history of unions and ironically workers are better protected these days by the NLRA and the low likelihood that business will hire armed goons to attack striking workers violently than in the days where large strides were made by the labor movement in the US.

[pianoben]

Well... better get started now, then!

[mc32]

Definitely. Unions brought progress in terms of worker rights, up to a point. They helped transform the landscape for all workers.

But, like all big and complex organizations they become corrupted and rather than having the interest of workers and society as foremost goals, self perpetuation and preservation become the goals.

Except for Bernie no other candidate explicitly and implicitly supports unions. All the others support policies which would undermine unions, except for where it’s politically expedient.

But this is natural. Even in the proletarian era of Mao, unions/workers suffered descent too. Often a most favored group would be pitted against another when necessary, for example the Hong Wei Bings [紅衛兵]

[ken]

> Unions brought progress in terms of worker rights, up to a point.

What does "up to a point" mean? Like these videos, this makes it sound as if the progress of workers' rights is over, and we've got all we'll ever need.

What about, say, "a living wage", which the government's minimum wage law is unable to provide? This isn't done. It will probably never be done.

[tathougies]

The thing is not all jobs need pay a living wage. Not everyone works to live. Some people work for extra income and their spouse works for a living. Others work to save for splurge purposes while being supported by parents. Others work for socialization after retirement. Forcing companies to pay living wages for every job means they are more reticent to create jobs which could help take families out of poverty or keep seniors from falling into hard times, etc.

Governments need to pursue policies to ensure there are a surplus of jobs paying living wages for the number of workers that need to live off work. This is not the same as pursuing policies to ensure every job pays a minimum wage.

[mc32]

Even Bernie came against this reality: his workers demanded $15/hr, you know in line with his stated policy platform. So, he did concede the raise but cut back on their hours.

Now, I’m somewhere in the middle. I think shipping jobs overseas has had a catastrophic impact on wages and jobs (unions can’t protect against this in any meaningful way). Also unions will milk a company dry regardless of consequences. But they occasionally protect against some abuse. On the other hand they stifle innovation in very counterproductive ways.

[icxa]

> I think shipping jobs overseas has had a catastrophic impact on wages and jobs

On the flip side this is also what has contributed so much to global progress in terms of increased wages globally, increased standard of living, life expectancy, literacy levels, and every other measurable positive progress indicator. I'm conflicted as well.

[29athrowaway]

> But, like all big and complex organizations they become corrupted and rather than having the interest of workers and society as foremost goals, self perpetuation and preservation become the goals.

The same can be said of corporations too.

[BEEdwards]

>Definitely. Unions brought progress in terms of worker rights, up to a point.

That point being when capitalists convinced the government to limit the power of unions and stifle their use of union pension funds to finance things that would be beneficial union.

Taft Hartley Act of 1947

[noego]

> I just wish there was room in today's political environment to discuss pros and cons to unions and non-unions

I agree with this from both perspectives. Companies and business-owners should also be allowed to espouse anti-union arguments without automatically being tagged as "evil" or subjected to extra scrutiny.

That said, you're certainly not going to find a nuanced debate in a ... training video. The purpose of this video is literally for the company to train their employees, not to serve as a forum for debating the pros and cons of unions.

[pessimizer]

The major problem with this is that the employees are captive for a company's anti-union arguments; they're integrated with the job.

As long as the union gets to speak to the employees on company time and gets to add pro-union arguments to the training videos, I see no problem with the boss doing so as well.

[jart]

Amazon never espoused anti-union views, so how could anyone accuse them of being evil? It is however Amazon's firmly held belief that a union-free environment will maximize benefits for its shareholders, customers, and associates (in that order).

[frogpelt]

Likewise. Nuance is gone on almost all topics. It's very frustrating.

I honestly believe the Internet, specifically places like Twitter have destroyed civil discussion and consideration of alternate viewpoints.

Also, I don't think the video is absurd at all. What advantage would Amazon have by being pro-union or pretending to be pro-union? And what advantage would they have by not addressing it at all?

[majewsky]

Humans have never been particularly good at considering alternate viewpoints. What's changed is that people holding alternate viewpoints (and unwilling to consider yours) are now much more visible to you.

(Edit: This was meant to sound hopeful.)

[rayiner]

Also different kinds of unions. For example, American style “union shops” are uncommon in Europe, and illegal in some EU countries.

[vinay_ys]

I saw a Youtube video of an American political campaign event where someone from Europe ask a question about unions and pretty much saying that American unions are weak compared to the ones in Europe. Is this true? How are the unions in Europe? Or any other place?

[maximente]

without writing a thesis, here are some thoughts:

- US is/was about 100 years behind european labor movement (germany, sweden, etc. started mid 19th century; US not until 1935 Wagner Act)

- ghent system - in scandanavian countries, unions provide most unemployment benefits, not .gov. you can imagine this leads to large union membership

- americans lost manufacturing/blue collar ("union" jobs) en masse as white collar jobs rose, whereas trade skills are still a thing in countries like Germany with their sort of parallel university system for trades

- there is probably a relationship between strong social welfare and union membership, though directionality isn't clear - perhaps large % of union membership enables more tolerance towards social welfare, or perhaps social welfare allows people to not worry about retaliation from attempting unionization, or ..

[ggm]

"The principle is sound but sometimes the implementation is weak"? A question to ask is perhaps, if a Mondragon workers cooperative should have a union?

[cameronbrown]

Devil's Advocate: If there are so many examples of weak implementations, then is the principle therefore unsound?

[nyolfen]

is it pointless to attempt democracy when so many democratic states are corrupt?

[dahfizz]

No, but perhaps we should recognize the common errors of implementation and use that to improve the concept of democracy.

It's not that this state or that state is corrupt. It's that democracy is vulnerable to corruption, so we should have systems in place to guard against that.

[chr1]

Not a good comparison because democratic states are consistently better than non-democratic ones, so we have evidence that democracy is an improvement compared to other methods.

[zaksoup]

> democratic states are consistently better than non-democratic ones

Union wages are consistently higher than non-union wages, so we have evidence that unions are an improvement compared to direct relationships with employers.

Source: literally every long-term economic comparison of wages done for the last 50 years.

[cambalache]

And not only wages, almost every single work right has been won by sweat and blood of the organized workers. 8 hours working day, 2 days off a week, vacation time, pregnancy leave, medical insurance, etc, etc. None of them was implemented as result of the benevolence of the dominant classes.

[jart]

Union wages have always been consistently higher enough to make the idea of shutting down and rebuilding on the other side of the planet just to ship the goods back attractive to many companies.

[arcticbull]

That's not really true, for instance Singapore isn't really democratic (it's effectively a one-party semi-totalitarian 'democracy') and you know what, it works really well there.

[tawy12345]

Singapore has also really only existed in its current form for a bit more than a half century and has had three leaders, two of which were immediate family. It hasn't really shown that autocracy works over longer time scales - in history there are plenty of cases where benevolent autocratic governments (monarchies, empires, etc) had extended periods of stability and prosperity.

[majewsky]

> democratic states are consistently better than non-democratic ones

This statement is so vague that it is not worth debating. What does "better" mean?

[cambalache]

You silly man, the only fallible institutions worth to maintain are those which benefit the people in power. All the rest are pie-in-the-sky utopias which should never be even discussed unless you are a commie lover.well, are you?

[harimau777]

I think there are at least an equal number of cases where a company without a union took advantage of their employees.

[specialist]

It comes down to information asymmetry and mitigating free-riders. This seminal 1965 book explains the necessity of unions in game theoretic terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action

As for particular criticisms of any particular org (unions, corporations, government, whomever), the evergreen all purpose prescription is to increase transparency, responsibility, and accountability. What's going on, how are decisions made, who gets the blame.

Everything else is just rhetoric (partisan squabbling).

[lucas_membrane]

> examples of unions being corrupt

This is largely a legacy of the police Red squads funded by the capitalists all over the USA starting in the 1930's. To get the radicals and other effective organizers and voices of the working classes out of the unions, local politicians and the police looked the other way as organized crime gained influence over many unions, thus simultaneously corrupting local governments, law enforcement, and organized labor.

[tomcatfish]

Do you have some citations for this claim?

I would be VERY interested in a reading list of any kind, as I have lived near Chicago, which has an interesting history with both police officers and unions.

[lucas_membrane]

The wikipedia article on Red Squads has many references about this ugly fact. Where I live, in Portland, the Red Squad was founded in reaction to the Depression-Era victory of labor, aided by loyal American leftists, in the West Coast dock strike. It was a part of the police department located in a separate headquarters, funded in part by private contributions, and its existence was not even admitted by the mayor for about 60 years. The Red Squads found organized crime a natural and profitable ally in wealth's struggle to limit workers' power. In the 1950's, the United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management found organized crime working closely and routinely with local authorities in Portland and well on its way to taking over the state attorney general's office. This is where Bobby Kennedy's battle against corrupt labor unions began and gave them so much national attention, when organized crime showed that it had learned that it could corrupt Republican politicians as proficiently as it had corrupted Democratic politicians.